Two recent Supreme Court of Canada decisions demonstrate that the corporate attribution doctrine is not a one-size-fits-all approach.

Court approval of a sale process in receivership or Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”) proposal proceedings is generally a procedural order and objectors do not have an appeal as of right; they must seek leave and meet a high test in order obtain it. However, in Peakhill Capital Inc. v.

Three recent court decisions address the scope and limits of bankruptcy injunctions barring future asbestos claims. The decisions – from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, a Maryland bankruptcy court, and the Montana Supreme Court – underscore that (i) broad notice of proposed injunctions is critical and (ii) channeling injunctions under § 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code apply only to liabilities that are derivative of the debtor’s liabilities, not to a company’s own liabilities.

States across the country have enacted so-called “reviver” statutes allowing otherwise time-barred claims for childhood sexual abuse to proceed. The statutes vary by jurisdiction, but generally do one of three things: (1) eliminate the statute of limitations for such claims; (2) extend the statute of limitations for such claims; or (3) create a window (e.g., a period of a few years) in which otherwise time-barred claims can be filed.

Only two asbestos bankruptcy cases were filed in 2019 – the lowest number in any one year since Congress enacted the special asbestos bankruptcy trust/channeling injunction statute, Section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code.

A Georgia bankruptcy court on April 17 issued a significant ruling that breaks new ground concerning how future claimants’ representatives in asbestos bankruptcies (FCRs) are chosen. In In re The Fairbanks Co., Case No. 18-41768-PWB (Bankr. N.D. Ga.

“[C]ourts may account for hypothetical preference actions within a hypothetical [C]hapter 7 liquidation” to hold a defendant bank (“Bank”) liable for a payment it received within 90 days of a debtor’s bankruptcy, held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on March 7, 2017.In re Tenderloin Health, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 4008, *4 (9th Cir. March 7, 2017).

The Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (“Bankruptcy Rules”) require each corporate party in an adversary proceeding (i.e., a bankruptcy court suit) to file a statement identifying the holders of “10% or more” of the party’s equity interests. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7007.1(a). Bankruptcy Judge Martin Glenn, relying on another local Bankruptcy Rule (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. R.

A Chapter 11 debtor “cannot nullify a preexisting obligation in a loan agreement to pay post-default interest solely by proposing a cure,” held a split panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Nov. 4, 2016. In re New Investments Inc., 2016 WL 6543520, *3 (9th Cir. Nov. 4, 2016) (2-1).

While a recent federal bankruptcy court ruling provides some clarity as to how midstream gathering agreements may be treated in Chapter 11 cases involving oil and gas exploration and production companies (“E&Ps”), there are still many questions that remain. This Alert analyzes and answers 10 important questions raised by the In re Sabine Oil & Gas Corporation decision of March 8, 2016.[1]